Template talk:Permanently protected

Protect
You might want to protect this template -- Andersmusician  VOTE  22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that would be necessary as it has not been the target of any vandalism. --24fan24 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of irony, I suppose. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I don't see sorry being necessary at the beginning of this template. I could see this being appropriate if editors would see this message when trying to edit the page, but this template is shown on the article's talk page. Any opinions? --24fan24 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity
"This page is protected from editing indefinitely, as it is a page which should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons."

The first clause is ambiguous in that "indefinitely" could just as well qualify "editing" as "protected". The implication could be that the page isn't protected from limited-term editing.

The second clause is ambiguous in that "for legal or other reasons" could equally well answer the question "Why shouldn't it be edited significantly?" as the question "What is the purpose of the significant edits?"

How about "This page is protected indefinitely from editing, as for legal and other reasons it is a page which should not be edited significantly"? Or even less wordy: "This page is indefinitely protected from editing, as for legal and other reasons it should not be edited significantly"? &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Add variant for perm-semi-prot
A semiprotection version should be added, since some things are permanently semi-protected (like this template, ironically). See the sandbox circa my timestamp.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right.

produces

but this is just intended as a demonstration. I suspect that pp-template could be successfully adapted for this purpose. I suggest you discuss it with User:Nihiltres as he/she seems to have worked most on that template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message at their talk page, requesting input. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage on every talk page of a full-protected template
Does this template need to be on every talk page for a permanently protected template? I wouldn't mind adding if there's no problem, I guess. Schfifty 3  21:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake
A user modified this template, but for some reason he changed the red padlock to the silver padlock. This must have been a mistake. Can someone re-add the red padlock, please? -68.219.194.188 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Notified user who changed it as well. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  02:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing edit
Three years ago, this edit made this template difficult to understand (because, where is one to suggest changes in order to get a consensus?). I think the edit was not proofread and should be reverted!--greenrd (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I guess the addition of text at the start is OK, but the removal of text is not.--greenrd (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

'no reason to be changed' is invalid in at least one case
(recent editors of the template itself) The rendered result of using this template on Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel is (presumably because SUBJECTSPACE = whatever the variable is for mainspace) ... because it is a page that has no reason to be changed. ..., which is nonsense. The Iranian strikes page is current news and while some level of protection is clearly justified, saying that there is no reason to ... chang[e] the page is clearly false - and confusing to newbies who don't understand the difficulties in writing templates that fully handle all use cases. People are less likely to follow guidelines if the guidelines say obviously false statements.

In this case, what is really wanted is something like because it is a page that can expect to need this level of protection on a multi-year time scale.

How can we override the default? Or should this template be changed?

I don't see how can be hacked (unless we also modify SUBJECTSPACE, which sounds like mediawiki could would have to be hacked, which would be obviously a much too heavy and arbitrary solution).

Either modifying this template to allow a non-default alternative to the current default phrase; or creating a variant on this template, would seem to be more reasonable and viable possible fixes.

Or should a different existing template be used on Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel? Boud (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * – editor, default text has been changed to because it is a page that can expect to need this level of protection on a multi-year time scale. See Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 03:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But just to make my disclaimer clearer: I'm not sure of all the use cases of this template. Right now I've only considered a sample of size 1. The change makes sense in this 1 case. :) I guess it's true that there are probably no pages that should never be changed, even if there are many that should rarely be changed. Anyway, I assume that you're familiar with how the template is used in the N-1 other cases, and anyone can discuss here if they're unhappy with the change. Boud (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! and as with all edits on WP, we shall see.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 11:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)